DISTRICT COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS

Collection: Federal Reference
Sub-shelf: GovInfo
Kind: Reference Document
Island: St. Croix
Date: 2008-05-02
Pages: 5
Text: Native Text
Identifiers: 2002-CV-0080

Download the original document · Plain text (TXT) · Browse the archive · How this archive works

Original source: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-vid-1_02-cv-00080/pdf/USCOURTS-vid-1_02-cv-00080-1.pdf

SHA-256 b43d8682a70deca63d4aa0c825b6ab16030588a32e0e9c9881b5851eefb228a9

Re-using this document

A work of the United States Government. Not subject to copyright in the United States under 17 U.S.C. § 105, and therefore in the public domain from the moment it was created.

Our description, tagging, arrangement, extracted text and machine transcripts are released under CC0 1.0. We assert nothing about the document itself.

Archive identifier LF-b43d8682a70d

Document text

DISTRICT COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS DIVISION OF ST. CROIX 5 CATHERINE SABIN, 5 5 Plaintiff, 5 2002-CV-0080 v. 5 5 ST. CROIX BASIC SERVICES, UNITED 5 STEELWORKERS OF AMERICA, UNITED 5 STEELWORKERS OF AMERICA, LOCAL 5 CHAPTER 8248 5 5 Defendants. 5 __________________________________________5 TO: Lee J. Rohn, Esq. Bernard C. Pattie, Esq. Michael J. Sanford, Esq. ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL THIS MATTER came before the Court upon Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Defendant to Provide Supplemental Responses to Discovery (Docket No. 106). Defendants United Steelworkers of America (USWA) and United Steel Workers of America, Local Chapter 8248, filed a response thereto. Having reviewed the documents filed by the said parties, the Court makes the following findings: Case: 1:02-cv-00080-TJS Document #: 111 Filed: 05/02/08 Page 1 of 5 Sabin v. St. Croix Basic Services 2002-CV-0080 Order Denying Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Demand For Production No. 1: Said Defendants state that they have produced all responsive documents. Defendants’ response is adequate. Defendants need not supplement. Demand For Production No. 2: Said Defendants state that they have produced all responsive documents. Defendants’ response is adequate. Defendants need not supplement. Demand For Production No. 4: Said Defendants state that they have produced all responsive documents. Defendants’ response is adequate. Defendants need not supplement. Demand For Production No. 5: The Court sustains Defendants’ objections. Defendants need not respond. Demand For Production No. 7: Said Defendants state that no documents satisfy this request. The Court cannot order the production of documents that do not exist. Consequently, Defendants’ response is adequate. Defendants need not supplement. Demand For Production No. 9: The Court sustains Defendants’ objections. Defendants need not respond. Case: 1:02-cv-00080-TJS Document #: 111 Filed: 05/02/08 Page 2 of 5 Sabin v. St. Croix Basic Services 2002-CV-0080 Order Denying Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Demand For Production Nos. 12 and 13: The Court sustains Defendants’ objections. Defendants need not respond. Demand For Production No. 14: Said Defendants state that they are no longer in possession of documents regarding union dues paid by Plaintiff as a result of their document retention policy and the passage of time. The Court cannot order production of documents not within Defendants’ custody or control. Consequently, Defendants’ response is adequate. Defendants’ need not supplement. Demand For Production No. 15-20: Said Defendants state that they have produced the Collective Bargaining Agreement. Based upon such representation, the Court finds that Defendants have adequately responded to this interrogatory. Plaintiff may renew her motion if she disputes this finding. Case: 1:02-cv-00080-TJS Document #: 111 Filed: 05/02/08 Page 3 of 5 Sabin v. St. Croix Basic Services 2002-CV-0080 Order Denying Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Demand For Production No. 21: Said Defendants state that they have produced all responsive documents. Defendants’ response is adequate. Defendants need not supplement. Demand For Production No. 23: The Court sustains Defendants’ objections. Defendants need not respond. Interrogatory No. 9: The Court sustains Defendants’ objections. Defendants need not respond. Interrogatory No. 10: Said Defendants state that they have produced all responsive documents. Defendants’ response is adequate. Defendants need not supplement further. Interrogatory No. 11: Said Defendants state that they have provided all responsive information. Defendants’ response is adequate. Defendants need not supplement further. Interrogatory No. 13: Said Defendants state that they have provided all responsive information. Defendants’ response is adequate. Defendants need not supplement further. Case: 1:02-cv-00080-TJS Document #: 111 Filed: 05/02/08 Page 4 of 5 Sabin v. St. Croix Basic Services 2002-CV-0080 Order Denying Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Interrogatory No. 14: Said Defendants state that they have provided all responsive information. Defendants’ response is adequate. Defendants need not supplement further. Interrogatory Nos. 15-20: The Court sustains Defendants’ objections. Defendants need not respond. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Defendant to Provide Supplemental Responses to Discovery (Docket No. 106) is DENIED. ENTER: Dated: May 2, 2008 /s/ GEORGE W. CANNON, JR. U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE Case: 1:02-cv-00080-TJS Document #: 111 Filed: 05/02/08 Page 5 of 5